November 4, 1997
                                                  


                             GSBCA 14219-RELO


                        In the Matter of RON MYERS


     Ron Myers, Santa Fe, NM, Claimant.

     Dennis Rino, Supervisory Budget Analyst, Santa Fe National
Forest, Forest Service, Santa Fe, NM; and L. E. Jorgenson, Budget
and Accounting Officer, Kootenai National Forest, Forest Service,
Libby, MT, appearing for Department of Agriculture.

DANIELS, Board Judge (Chairman).

     The Federal Travel Regulation provides that subject to
various constraints, when an agency transfers an employee to a
new permanent duty station in the interest of the Government,
"the Government shall reimburse [the] employee for expenses
required to be paid by him/her in connection with the sale of one
residence at his/her old official station."  41 CFR 302-6.1
(1995); see also 5 U.S.C.  5724a(a)(4) (1994).  Does the term
"old official station" mean "old permanent duty station"?  Not
necessarily, as this case shows.

     Forest Service employee Ron Myers' permanent duty station
was the Trout Creek Ranger Station in Kootenai National Forest,
Montana.  In May 1995, Mr. Myers' supervisor sent him on a long-
term detail to the Missoula Ranger District in Lolo National
Forest, Montana, about 120 miles southeast.  Mr. Myers moved out
of the trailer he had been renting in Trout Creek.  He purchased
a home in Missoula and moved into it.

     Nearly five months later, Mr. Myers was offered a permanent
assignment with Santa Fe National Forest in Santa Fe, New Mexico. 
He accepted this position and moved to New Mexico shortly
thereafter.

     Mr. Myers sold his house in Missoula in connection with this
move.  He asked the Forest Service to reimburse him for $6,412.25
in expenses he incurred in making this sale.  The agency rejected
the claim on the ground that since Trout Creek was his permanent
duty station, the Missoula residence was not located at his "old
official station."

     The FTR's definition of the term "official station" does not
use the word "permanent."  It refers instead to:

     The building or other place where the officer or
     employee regularly reports for duty. . . .  With
     respect to entitlement under this chapter relating to
     the residence and the household goods and personal
     effects of an employee, official station or post of
     duty also means the residence or other quarters from
     which the employee regularly commutes to and from work.

41 CFR 302-1.4(k).

     Mr. Myers transferred to New Mexico to take a new permanent
assignment for the benefit of the Government.  When he was
transferred, his official station was in Missoula.  He regularly
reported for duty there, and he regularly commuted to and from
work from a residence in Missoula.  The home he sold, and for
which he seeks reimbursement of transaction expenses, was that
residence.  He no longer had any links to Trout Creek, other than
the administrative designation that that was his permanent duty
station.  In these circumstances, the General Accounting Office,
which formerly settled claims by federal employees against the
United States pertaining to expenses incurred in relocating from
one duty station to another, held that the general conditions for
eligibility for recovery of the expenses were met.  Rowan L.
Peterson, B-260322 (Aug. 15, 1995); John W. Pitts, B-215012
(Dec. 4, 1984).  We agree with this conclusion.  At the time Mr.
Myers moved to New Mexico, Missoula was his "official station"
for purposes of entitlement to reimbursement of real estate
transaction expenses incurred in connection with the transfer.

     The Forest Service has not yet reviewed the elements of Mr.
Myers' claim (brokerage fees, settlement fee, title insurance
premium, and document preparation fee) or the particular amounts
the claimant spent on them to determine whether reimbursement is
appropriate under the provisions of the FTR, 41 CFR pt. 302-6. 
We remand the claim to the agency for its consideration of these
matters.  In the event that Mr. Myers believes that the Forest
Service's determinations are improper, he may file another claim
with us as to the items in dispute.

     The claimant and the agency have peppered us with comments
about the claimant's political beliefs, expressions, and
concerns,  as well as advice agency personnel may have given to
the claimant before he sold his house.  All of this information
is irrelevant, so we make no comment on it.





                              _________________________ 
                              STEPHEN M. DANIELS 
                              Board Judge